In this time of giant wheels and tires, this Nissan NV200 van really stands out. I had vaguely noticed that they looked a bit like they had tiny feet, but the other day I was in traffic next to one, and it really hit me: these wheels and tires look minute. So I had to go home and look up the size. Yes, they are small.
But there’s more than (barely) meets the eye. Turns out these tires are also expensive at replacement time. And that’s causing lots of grief with its owners.
P185/60R15 is the size. That’s the original size on my Scion xB, which also leans to looking a bit small-footed. And I’ve actually increased the size slightly on mine to 185/65R15, to get a bit more sidewall for a wee bit smoother ride, as well as a wee bit (3%) reduction in highway rpm.
The NV200 has a listed curb weight of 3,260 lbs, maximum payload of of 1,480 lbs, for a GVWR of 4,751. Almost 5,000 lbs on those little licorice Life Savers. Hmm. I assume that’s well within the max load ratings of those tires.
Or is it? The load ratings of all the P185/60R15 tires that pop on a search says that they all have a load index of 84, which equals 1,102 lbs. That can’t be right. So I did some more searching and finally found an Owner’s Manual that has this in it:
That explains it. But will most folks replacing their tires know or remember this? Nissan even suggests that this may happen, and notes that maximum payload will be reduced. Are these special load index 94 tires easy to find?
No! Turns out they’re only available at Nissan dealers for $171 (!) a piece! And that’s only because the dealers are gouging, as these are not actually expensive tires. The folks at the nv200forum.com are none too happy. The problem is that the tire shops won’t mount a larger size, as per their policy (I had to sign a waiver to get my 185/65s mounted, and that was only because the circumference was no more than 3% off from factory specs. About the only way around it is to buy larger 205/65RT15s mounted on wheels from Tire Rack, and then self-mount. Or find a small local shop willing to do so.
Update: That was a year or two ago. Tire Rack now carries a Continental 185/60R15 with a 94/92T load index, priced at $112 each. Plus shipping and mounting, of course. That’s still twice what 205/65R15s go for.
Well, I kind of wondered about those mini-donuts, but I didn’t think it was that much of an issue. So why doesn’t Nissan just mount regular 205/65R15s, that have a load rating of 1400 lbs? They’d be cheaper to replace and sure look a lot better too.
Unfortunately, this is same vehicle chosen as the new NYC taxicab. Not very comfortable, but better riding and finished than the Ford Transit Connect they were also considering. Fortunately, they’ve kept the window open for drivers to buy hybrid Camrys and other options, so one can generally avoid these unless desperate.
But the Transit Connect is now on to the next generation, which are probably better than the Nissan. At least they don’t have weird gun slit side windows. Every time I see one I think “Seriously, you couldn’t have spent an extra dollar on a chrome plated plastic grille?” And the interior, although it has many good cab features, is way too grim. A few colors other than a sea if gray would have been nice and not cost anything. A few details that were not as cheap and shitty as possible would have been nice.
Most have nasty naked steel wheels. A few have alloys. I’d require at least plastic wheel covers.
The standards of transit in NYC including the subway are way below acceptable. The taxis are just one more degrading insult. No wonder everyone is using Uber and Lyft.
The whole NYC cab thing is very strange. Many companies could have redone an empty mini truck van as a cab with all the same stuff. Only the rejected Turkish proposal was a purpose built vehicle.
There is no reason to stay with the Nissan. And they should be hybrids – city driving is what hybrids are good at. And they should all be wheelchair accessible.
I thought the “Taxi of Tomorrow” died after Bloomberg left office?
It feels to me that Nissan is cheating by continuing to sell the NV200 taxi, or as a cargo van, or through the Chevy OEM deal. They should be left to amortize its’ federalization costs as a retail passenger van only, with no third-row seat, and still with the naked steelies, under which circumstances it would develop an intensely loyal following among people who buy one new car every 20 years.
In other words, it should be a Eugenemobile and nothing else.
“It should be a Eugenemobile”
Give it another 10-20 years, and then it will be. Just the thing to replace all those elderly Toyota vans.
Many of these small vans have special tires. The Transit Connect has required different sized extra load tires in both generations (205/65-15 95 on the first gen, 215/55-16 97 on the new-same size Focus uses in 93 load), the Ram Promaster City uses the same size and load as the second gen Transit Connect, and the full size Promaster and Transit use oddball sizes that can only be found with the right load index from Nokian (a Finnish company specializing in winter tires), Continental (Vanco-OE on Promaster) or Hankook (Dynapro-OE on Transit). When production first started on the Promaster, which beat the fullsize Transit to market, the only things out there were the Conti Vancos and they were unobtainium.
Similar thing happened when Mazda first released the new 6 and CX5 with 19″ wheels – nobody made tires except Dunlop (for the 6) and then Toyo (for the CX5) and both options sucked and were ungettable thanks to production of new Mazdas.
Within 6 months other companies released much better, much cheaper and more readily available tires for both.
I sell tires, if you couldn’t tell.
Those do look dinky on there, but surely the worst proportioned wheel/tire/vehicle in recent memory is the short lived Tacoma 2WD Double Cab. When I (rarely) see one of these I always wonder how anyone could look at one of these and want to buy it.
The BMW i3’s tires/wheels always struck me as a little odd; tall but seemingly very narrow. For low rolling resistance, I assume, but I wonder how they affect winter traction.
We have about 200 of these in the city fleet where I work. The tires are quite an odd size- 155 / 60 r 19 or something like that.
What city do you work for that bought 200 i3s for its’ fleet!?
LAPD, right?
Tire Rack says the BMW I3 takes
155/70/19 front and rear
($130.45 each)
or
165/60/20 front
($134.45 each)
and
175/55/20 rear
($147.45 each)
Sizes depending in the model of course.
My mental vision of a 175/55/20 tire looks an awful lot like a Model T tire…. just sayin’
More like VW Beetle I think?
Narrower tires have better traction in the snow than wider tires.
X2
no they don’t. snow traction is all about tread material and design.
Sorry, in my experience it’s both. Yes you can get very low profile snow tires these days but I think it’s because you simply cannot fit anything other than high inch wheels on some cars.
unless you actually did a test between the two and controlled for the tread design, your experience is anecdotal at best. Snow tires work by having a very soft tread compound, tall tread blocks, and a bunch of “sipes” cut into the tread blocks. that way as the tire applies force to the (snow covered) ground- whether accelerating or braking- the tread blocks flex and those sipes become hundreds of “biting” edges to claw through snow. see here:
http://www.ford-trucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/winter_work017.jpg
since the size of the contact patch is largely determined by the air pressure inside the tire and the weight it’s carrying, there’s not much difference between a wide or narrow tire. and the notion some have that a skinny tire will “get down through the snow better” is silly. it’d take you a long time to cut through hard packed snow.
Width isn’t a factor at all. Rally cars just run on narrow snow tires because they like the look.
185 / 60 R 15? Good lord. That’s pathetically small. Puny even. GM pulled this same crap back during the 1960s.
As for me, when acquiring my various GM project vehicles, I promptly shitcanned the puny 14X6 inch stock steel wheels they came with in favor of their more servicable 15X6 and 15X7 counterparts. I even scored a set of custom 15X8 steelies off a junked 80’s el Camino once. Those are going on the back of my Biscayne 🙂 .
I remember first seeing a Nissan NV200. At the time, I found it hideous to look at. I found the larger NV2500 van more attractive. But not everyone needs such large vehicle for their business. One thing I wish both vehicles were available with was a turbo diesel engine. When you consider what each van is used for, one would need the low end torque of a turbo diesel.
I was thinking more along the lines of an EV or, even better, a hybrid. The added low end torque of battery assist would be around that of a diesel, without all of the issues and cost that a diesel engine entails.
In fact, Chrysler having a low-end, cargo version of the Pacifica hybrid would fit that bill for city delivery quite nicely, what with its plug-in, 30 mile EV range.
I’m a bit surprised they’re not offering it at least as a low-series passenger van. Talk about an ideal taxi!
In the summer of 2014 Nissan introduced the van’s EV version, called the e-NV200.
Diesels stink. Literally. Their pollution generates way too much for the atmosphere. Hybrids are wayyyy more efficient.
diesels compliant with North American emissions standards don’t stink, and are as clean as gas engines.
that is, so long as they’re not made by VW.
” one would need the low end torque of a turbo diesel.”
we’ve already been through this multiple times here. turbocharging gets you low-end torque. not diesel.
If you went from a 185/60 R15 to a 185/65 R16 the revolutions per mile decrease from about 850 to 790, which is more than 3%.
I think he intended it to be a 185/65-15
To keep the same overall diameter (roughly) moving from a 185/60R15 to a 185/65R14 would work.
I did. That was a typo. I kept the same wheels.
Could you tell me what is the rpm reduction on the tach at 100km/h ( 60 mph ) on your Xb with the 185/65 R16 ? Rumion with a cvt ( and 1.8 L ) could ‘ave saved the Xb…
I said it was a 3% reduction in rpm at any speed. Which is pretty minor, and not nearly enough to make the xB a relaxed highway cruiser. Yes, the 1.8 and a lower (numerical) axle ratio would have done wonders.
This is an old problem. People are tempted to buy ordinary passenger car tires for their light truck, because they are the same size but more widely available and slightly cheaper than proper light truck (LT) tires.
Its been a concern for decades. Frankly I’m surprised, in our litigious age that Nissan allows this but leaves it up to the owner to adjust loads accordingly. I would expect the maker to forbid anything but a 94 spec tire , just to cover their asses.
Pennsylvania’s state safety inspection requires tires to be at or above the minimum OE spec.
Many states have no yearly inspection.
The OE size on my ’97 Crown Vic is 205/70R15. I don’t recall off the top of my head what the load rating is, but considering the curb weight of the car is nearly 3800 lbs, the max GVWR has to be at *least* 4500 if not higher. Wonder why they didn’t just go with those? It’s not the easiest size to find anymore but it’s not all that hard either.
Scratch that, 215/70R15. The tires I had installed earlier this year were Bridgestone Ecopia EP422 Plus, with a load rating of 98. Max GVWR 6612 lbs. The price? $84.99 each from Costco.
Yeah, it’s more sidewall and I guess the extra width might ding the gas mileage a bit, but as a common tire it seems like speccing those instead would have been an acceptable compromise.
That diameter increases by four inches–each tire. That’s equal to the height of the OE sidewall. If you look at the picture, the side door already has a notch for clearance, so the utility of the van already is compromised to have a tire as tall as the OE tire. Increasing the diameter four inches requires an additional two inches of wheelarch cutout all the way around. Presumably, that’s another two inches notched into the side door.
In front, the larger wheelarch will just about touch the door.
If you aren’t going to increase the loading height, then you need to design the suspension with the axle centerline two inches higher. The NV200 has a rear beam axle with vertical ends to support the hubs. These vertical faces will have to be two inches taller, and will require heavier box channel support to resist the additional leverage of the taller/longer vertical face.
You then need a full four inches of additional height inside the front and rear wheelhouses to receive the taller tire at full compression.
Bottom line: Car tires aren’t truck tires.
GM offers a City Express van that has 185/60R15 tires.
Most tire chains in my neck of the woods allow a bigger tire to be installed as long as the tire is the same size (example:R16) and have the same or higher speed rating
My guess is that the Chevy is geared to buyers of delivery companies or other businesses that are going local in and about a city where a large vehicle is not wanted or needed.
The City Express is a rebadged NV200.
Yes and even that minor change seemed to be a change too far… 🙂
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-outtake/on-the-go-outtake-oh-mr-badge-engineer-you-had-one-job/
It’s this sort of mickey-mouse crap that irritates the hell out of me that the last generation Ram C/V (essentially a stiffer suspension, base Grand Caravan with the rear seats and belts removed) was replaced by the smaller Promaster City, aka Fiat Doblo. At least the Ram C/V had mostly Grand Caravan specs so replacing routine maintenance items (like the tires) was easy to source. Nissan intentionally using small, vehicle-specific tires for the NV200 that can only be gotten from stealerships at grossly inflated prices is unconscionable. I’ve never much liked Nissan products, anyway.
I’m not especially enamored with Ford products, but for a small, old-school type, short-wheelbase minivan, reviews seem to indicate that the current generation Transit Connect is the best choice among the current trio of converted ‘city’ cargo vans.
I bought a used Ram C/V a few months ago to replace the beater Plymouth Voyager that threw a rod that I use for my side ebay/flea market business. I actually bought it from Enterprise – it was an ex long-term rental – and had them ship it halfway across the country.
I like it – the Promaster City or Transit Connect would be too small, and a Promaster or Transit would be overkill. It handles well, holds a ton of stuff, and should be easy to find parts for.
“I like it – the Promaster City or Transit Connect would be too small, and a Promaster or Transit would be overkill. It handles well, holds a ton of stuff, and should be easy to find parts for.”
I understand the game plan with discontinuing the Ram C/V; the replacement for the Town&Country (the Pacifica) was moving upmarket, so the C/V got replaced by the Promaster City, which itself was a rebadged, imported Fiat Doblo.
But it doesn’t mean it was a particularly good idea. The aged Grand Caravan continues to sell well and is still in production due to its low price, and the Ram C/V was an easy conversion of the GC. Further, the C/V ‘did’ slot into the ‘just right’ size between the trio of small, city vans and the larger, full-size vans.
But if the C/V was still around, I suspect it might have been too hard to price the Promaster City beneath it. In a recent C&D comparo of the three city vans, the PC came up the rear due to a very poor shifting manumatic. I think Marchionne really screwed the pooch on the whole arrangement of going upmarket with the Grand Caravan replacement Pacifica and using the Promaster City wagon to fill the cheaper small minivan/wagon void. I can’t feature too many conquest sales for a Pacifica that’s priced at (or higher) than the Sienna or Odyssey, and the Promaster City is a lackluster contender against the Transit Connect and even the NV200.
The rumor is that the Grand Caravan is eventually going to be replaced by some sort of crossover. Frankly, though, I have my doubts.
” the C/V ‘did’ slot into the ‘just right’ size between the trio of small…”
Right size ? MB Metris …but not reliable and not affordable .
Maybe waiting for the NV300 : ttps://www.nissan.fr/vehicules/neufs/nv300/prix-caracteristiques.html
There is no excuse for “under-tired” anything. In a commercial/cargo-oriented vehicle it is borderline criminally negligent. Full stop.
My 1986 Ford Ranger 4wd SuperCab was pretty nicely trimmed out (STX package) but came from the factory with 195/75-15 load range SL tires on 5.5″ rims. They were bald by around 22k miles, but not before one blew out. Admittedly this was in the era before big tires, but it was still pretty small for that type of vehicle in ’86. I replaced them with 235/75-15’s on 6.5″ steel rims. I’m not sure I’d call this Nissan under-tired, size-wise. A similar European van in ’50’s probably would have been shod with 135-15’s (if French, otherwise 5.20-13 bias ply tires.
I noticed this of 80’s Fords. The base tires always seemed a bit small for anything but the lightest-duty use, to cut the price and squeeze an extra bit of fuel economy.
All models had optional tires and wheels that were much better.
Imho, the buyer has a duty to select options, including tires that suit their needs and uses. Unfortunately this looked bad for Ford. Their penny pinching left many buyers unhappy if they trusted Ford to spec vehicles properly.
Preposterous. The Austrian spec NV200 lists an even smaller size (175/70 R14C 89/87 R)…
The original VW Eurovan required light truck tires
http://www.sears.com/michelin-agilis-tire-205-65r15c-t-bw/p-09579534000P
The EV had a rated payload of 1750 lbs about the same as a 1/2 ton pickup
The same problem with my 86 VW vanagon (I think they are called type 3 in Europe). It was supposed to have 14 inch diameter light truck tires. I had a set of Michelin LTX on it when I needed to replace the front set about 5 years ago they were unobtainaium. I was lucky and some nice guy saw me at Canadian tire one day and said he had a set on rims I could have for $50. The one tire shop that might have been able to get me a set was quoting $235 a peice. The other option I was told was to get a set of winter tires as they had a higher rating, but I am not sure if this is correct.
Yes. A pretty egregious example of de-contenting!
Here in Virginia, we have annual safety inspections, and they typically check tire condition. I doubt they would say anything about same-size replacement tires with a lower load-rating. And Nissan apparently left the door open by stating that such a tire may be used if the owner reduces his maximum load.
OTOH, I’ve heard stories of tire stores refusing to install conventional radials on an ’80s Mercedes 240D, because their database says ‘All Mercedes’ require a high-speed rated tire!
Happy Motoring, Mark
Thanks for the tip on the Nissan NV200; was thinking about one since small pickups aren’t available anymore. Agree the wheels/tires look small on the van.
Had same issue when I bought a 2009 Toyota Venza . The 4cyl version requires P245/55-19 tires, which are hard to find and expensive. The V-6 cyl version requires P245/45-20 which, curiously, were easier to find and less expensive. Didn’t care for the 20″ rims though but liked the 19″ rims more.
But the V-6 carried a significantly higher auto insurance premium. Operating expense was higher too. So I bought the 4cyl knowing the tires were going to be expensive but how often do your replace tires anyway? Managed to drive on the original tires for about 6 years/60,000 miles. When I had to replace the tires, Costco had a deal on the Bridgestone Ecopia 422 tires but still cost me a painful $778 out the door for all four tires installed, balanced, taxes, etc.
“Thanks for the tip on the Nissan NV200; was thinking about one since small pickups aren’t available anymore. Agree the wheels/tires look small on the van.”
I can understand limited availability, hard-to-find, custom tire sizes on niche/sports vehicles like, say, the Corvette. It goes with the territory. But it’s inexcusable on higher-volume, mainstream daily-drivers. It’s just another of those small things that needs to be researched prior to making a new vehicle purchase.
If you ever get to thinking all vans look alike, look at a Nissan NV200 window van and a Chrysler Pacifica side by side. The Nissan is so ugly. And even the base-est Pacifica isn’t undertired.
Test drove the Chevy version a couple of years ago. I did a double take when I read the tire sidewall. My Fit came with a bigger standard tire, 185/65R15.
This idea of small, high pressure tires on compact vans is not new, as others have stated, but very unusual in the US market accustomed to generous tire sizes on most everything.
VW went with 7.00×14’s inflated to 40psi from the lower pressure 6.40×15’s about 1964, as the GVWR went up a few hundred pounds.
In another odd case of CC serendipity, I happened to be visiting New York today and lucked into a taxi ride in one of these. Though there were definitely some good points – easy access, passenger-controlled temperature in the back, a handy map screen – the ride was jittery, the car rattled like crazy, and the plastic-enclosed cabin had an odd Judge Dredd bunker on wheels feel to it. I should’ve asked the driver what he thought of the tires, but didn’t get a chance. On the whole, I’d rather stick with the old Checkers.
185/65R15 are the tires on my Nissan Versa Note SV. I consider them to be pretty good tires for the application, which weighs 2,523 pounds and can carry 5 passengers. My load limit is 848 pounds. That is 3371 pounds plus fuel, so round it off to 3400.
The tires on the van differ only by being a 60 series, the specs are otherwise the same. 1380 pounds more? This is troubling, Could Nissan weather a storm of Firestone/Ford Explorer style criticism if tires start popping on overloaded vans this summer? Does anyone really go “Nah, I’d better not put any more in the thing, it’ll be overweight?”
Anyone who thinks that a wide winter tire is better than a narrow winter tire hasn’t driven in snow.
We have a fleet of 2015/16 NV200 micro-vans. These Nissan vans are made in Mexico and are the worst vehicle I have ever driven.
150HP 2.0L 4 cy with a CVT trans. GVWR approx. 4700lbs.
They get terrible fuel economy since they are so underpowered.
We tossed all the original crappy 185/60R15C JK tires made in India immediately.
Nokian makes a 205/60R15XL All-weather tire that fits the OEM 15×5.5 wheel.
It takes 50PSI and has adequate load rating despite not a load range C.
Wider and greater diameter than the original tires. Excellent in snow.
small tires and only a 4cyl engine?! don’t they know what these vehicles are being used for? Hello Nissan, there are small businesses in big cities that carry their office load in the vehicle and also have the need to fit into parking spaces and they need larger tires and at least a 6 cyl OPTION.
Everyone dissing on a van designed to be minimalistic. Ridiculous comparisons, whining about engine size, tire size, yada yada, yada. Well it is not for everyone, but fits my needs very well. Small and light enough to pull on car trailer behind rv. Roomy enough to carry two large dogs in large kennels. Has creature comforts on SV model of cruise control, power mirrors, one-click up/down electric windows (both windows). Pretty quite, on highway, and does 75 cruising with very stable road feel. Very tight steering and feel with no shakes, or pulling to one side as you drive down highway. I test drove Transit Connect and Nissan NV200, and I immediately choose the NV200 because it was so smooth, quite, and tight. The interior had more leg room, and the dash was so much more clean and clutter free, compared to the ridiculous protruding angles everywhere on the ford. The ford felt unrefined, and sounded and felt like a ford focus (no thankyou). Driving at night, the NV200’s instrumentation and radio control displays are so bright, simple, clear, and easy to read. The CVT transmission is butter smooth. Oh and the stereo sounds great. Nuff said!